sebb wrote: > On 8 November 2010 10:37, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: >> Hi Sebb, >> >> sebb wrote: >> >>> On 8 November 2010 08:49, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: >>>> sebb wrote: >>>> >>>>> Most of the generics fixes have now been done. >>>>> >>>>> There are still a few raw Class references; most of these can be fixed >>>>> if DefaultFileSystemConfigBuilder.getConfigClass() is changed to >>>>> return a FileSystem [1] >>>>> >>>>> Can anyone else confirm that this is a sensible change? >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VFS-334 >>>> >>>> No. We use an implementation of FileSystemConfigBuilder that does also >>>> not implement FileSystem to introduce more global configuration >>>> parameters. >>> >>> So? None of the FileSystemConfigBuilder classes currently implement >>> FileSystem. >>> >>>> What you can do is: >>>> >>>> protected Class<? extends FileSystemConfigBuilder> getConfigClass(); >>> >>> No, that won't work, because all the other getConfig() methods return >>> subclasses of FileSystem. >> >> I see. >> >>> The only solution then would be to use Class<?> throughout. >>> >>> All I'm suggesting is changing the return class from >>> DefaultFileSystemConfigBuilder.getConfigClass() to (say) >>> FileSystem.class. >>> >>> The FileSystemConfigBuilder subclass getConfig() methods are not there >>> because they implement the FileSystem interface, they implement the >>> abstract method in FileSystemComfigBuilder. >> >> I had a closer look at it now and it seems that Class<?> is the right >> solution. Basically the class type is used as a key to the options that >> apply for the current file system, but the stuff from >> DefaultFileSystemConfiguBuilder are available as options to all FS (as >> our implementation of FileSystemConfigBuilder does). It does not >> necessary have to be a FileSystem implementation, it's just a natural >> choice for a FS implementation. > > Would there be any harm in using the FS interface class in this case? > > i.e., use the implementation class for all real file systems, and use > the FileSystem interface for generic options. > > Won't that work just as well?
Works with: protected Class<? extends FileSystem> getConfigClass(); - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
